> The problem any competitor will have fighting FB is entry price I don't think that's true. The main problem right now is that VR is still (even after all the

> The problem any competitor will have fighting FB is entry price I don't think that's true. The main problem right now is that VR is still (even after all these years) an unproven/experimental consumer product. It's like buying a game console in the 70s-80s compared to buying one today. Back then, video games were still largely experimental and you were more likely to get garbage than gold. Today, designers know what works/doesn't work, and consumers can be confident in their purchases. VR is not like that yet. A "VR Game" is still a vague and uncertain term, and consumers can't have confidence in it yet. There are some great VR experiences out there, but there are many many more garbage ones. I think that a company focusing on finding a good fit for VR is going to be better off long-term than one just trying to corner this early market. Example: If Valve figures out the "secret sauce" for VR games (much like Nintendo did in the early console wars), it's not going to matter how cheap Facebook's headsets are. People (including Oculus owners) will flock to Steam for the superior experiences while Facebook scrambles to make clones. With a failed "platform", Facebook will ultimately lose. If anything, Facebook's investments to flood the market with cheap headsets (possibly even subsidizing them) could end up helping Valve in the long term, since it just means more potential Steam customers, and it gives Valve the opportunity to experiment with the high-end stuff without worrying about the market completely dying in the meantime.